BIRDHICHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Birdhi Chand who has been convicted under sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. THE Applicant was an employee of the Pali Electric Supply Company. It appears that he is also the secretary of the Trade Union attached to the Company. It further appears that there was going to be a meeting of the Trade Union on the 19th June, 1953, at 6 P. M. THE applicant was on duty on that date from 4 P. M. to mid-night. He wanted as secretary to attend that meeting but was refused permission or leave by the Company. THEreupon, what he did was that at 7. 30 P. M. that day he switched off the main line for ten minutes with the result that no electric energy was supplied to the town for that period. He says that he did that in obedience to certain directions from the Trade Union.